I would like to respond to the letter written by Christopher Juniper of Denver about the Eminent Domain Ruling not creating new law in the letter section of the Denver Post, Saturday July 28, 2007

While the “Kelo” decision did not create new law, it did uphold new law. It took activists judges of the same ilk and philosophy as that of the Judges on the court at the time of the original decision that did create new law. That decision, which allowed local governments to take private property and give it to another developer (General Motors) was reassessed by the Michigan Supreme Court (One of the high Courts that allowed this travesty in the first place) during the “Kelo” decision and deemed it a mistake!

It would have been a breath of fresh air to see the highest court in the land to see the same mistake! What exactly was that mistake? Reinterpreting the Constitution’s 5th Amendment to mean “public purpose” or public benefit from “public use”. They had no right to do that! Judges are not allowed to interpret the Constitution. That was done for them by “We the People”!

And this is etched in stone in the second paragraph of Article VI of the Constitution. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in
the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding (There is none ).

So I do have a better idea or alternative Christopher. Let’s get back to the the Supreme Law of the Land as “We the People ” so elegantly wrote and desired in our Constitution. And leave the revitalization to the free market and willing sellers!

“They had no right to do that! Judges are not allowed to interpret the Constitution. That was done for them by “We the People”!”

Judges change the Constitution all of the time. If you have read postings on other threads you will find that many people view the Constitution as a living document and meant to be changed to meet current “social needs”

The judges simply change the meanings of certain words and change the complete meaning of the law. How do you think all of these activist judges get away with the things they do.

The most ironic aspect of this is that the same ones who fight so hard for their Constitutional rights are the usually the same ones that justify the judges changing the Constitution.

jgd777

David

“They had no right to do that! Judges are not allowed to interpret the Constitution. That was done for them by “We the People”!”

Judges change the Constitution all of the time. If you have read postings on other threads you will find that many people view the Constitution as a living document and meant to be changed to meet current “social needs”

The judges simply change the meanings of certain words and change the complete meaning of the law. How do you think all of these activist judges get away with the things they do.

The most ironic aspect of this is that the same ones who fight so hard for their Constitutional rights are the usually the same ones that justify the judges changing the Constitution.

Dan Staley

The USC has merely upheld previous dicta.

Dog-whistle politics about scary “activist judges’ don’t apply here.

The basic, only, single, change was that job creation was in the public good. Perhaps some people who run around scared all the time would like to argue how capitalist job creation is bad…

Dan Staley

The USC has merely upheld previous dicta.

Dog-whistle politics about scary “activist judges’ don’t apply here.

The basic, only, single, change was that job creation was in the public good. Perhaps some people who run around scared all the time would like to argue how capitalist job creation is bad…

Vincent Carroll is The Denver Post's editorial page editor. He has been writing commentary on politics and public policy in Colorado since 1982 and was originally with the Rocky Mountain News, where he was also editor of the editorial pages until that newspaper gave up the ghost in 2009.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Posts by Category

Posts by Category

Idea Log Archives

Idea Log Archives

About The Idea Log

The idea log The Denver Post editorial board shares commentary and opinion on issues of interest to Coloradans.